Table 6
Comparison results of EhrlichiaCHECK Ab ELISA (Agrolabo) and INgezim Ehrlichia ELISA (Gold Standard Diagnostics) against IFAT.
| Assays | Samples | IFAT |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | ||
| EhrlichiaCHECK Ab ELISA (Agrolabo) | Positive | 24(a) | 0(b) | 24 |
| Negative | 0(c) | 27(d) | 27 | |
| Total | 24 | 27 | 51 | |
| INgezim Ehrlichia ELISA (GSD) | Positive | 24(a) | 1(b) | 25 |
| Negative | 0(c) | 26(d) | 26 | |
| Total | 24 | 27 | 51 | |
The IFAT (FLUO Ehrlichia canis kit from Agrolabo S.p.A.) was considered the reference method. Total number of samples analyzed: 51. GSD: Gold Standard Diagnostics. (a) true positives; (b) false positives; (c) false negatives; (d) true negatives. Proportion of agreement (a + d/a + b + c + d): 100% (EhrlichiaCHECK Ab ELISA) and 98.0% (INgezim Ehrlichia ELISA).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.